Variations in reporting of nurse involvement in end-of-life practices in intensive care units worldwide (ETHICUS-2): A prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: ICU nurses are most frequently at the patient's bedside, providing care for both patients and family members. They perform an essential role and are involved in decision-making. Despite this, research suggests that nurses have a limited role in the end-of-life decision-making process and are occasionally not involved. OBJECTIVE: Explore global ICU nurse involvement in end of life decisions based on the physician's perceptions and sub-analyses from the ETHICUS-2 study. DESIGN: This is a secondary analysis of a prospective multinational, observational study of the ETHICUS-2 study. SETTING: End of life decision-making processes in ICU patients were studied during a 6-month period between Sept 1, 2015, and Sept 30, 2016, in 199 ICUs in 36 countries. INTERVENTION: None. METHODS: The ETHICUS II study instrument contained 20 questions. This sub-analysis addressed the four questions related to nurse involvement in end-of-life decision-making: Who initiated the end-of-life discussion? Was withholding or withdrawing treatment discussed with nurses? Was a nurse involved in making the end-of-life decision? Was there agreement between physicians and nurses? These 4 questions are the basis for our analysis. Global regions were compared. RESULTS: Physicians completed 91.8 % of the data entry. A statistically significant difference was found between regions (p < 0.001) with Northern Europe and Australia/New Zealand having the most discussion with nurses and Latin America, Africa, Asia and North America the least. The percentages of end-of-life decisions in which nurses were involved ranged between 3 and 44 %. These differences were statistically significant. Agreement between physicians and nurses related to decisions resulted in a wide range of responses (27-86 %) (p < 0.001). There was a wide range of those who replied "not applicable" to the question of agreement between physicians and nurses on EOL decisions (0-41 %). CONCLUSION: There is large variability in nurse involvement in end-of-life decision-making in the ICU. The most concerning findings were that in some regions, according to physicians, nurses were not involved in EOL decisions and did not initiate the decision-making process. There is a need to develop the collaboration between nurses and physicians. Nurses have valuable contributions for best possible patient-centered decisions and should be respected as important parts of the interdisciplinary team. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Wide global differences were found in nurse end of life decision involvement, with low involvement in North and South America and Africa and higher involvement in Europe and Australia/New Zealand.

The impact of religion on changes in end-of-life practices in European intensive care units: a comparative analysis over 16 years.

PURPOSE: Religious beliefs affect end-of-life practices in intensive care units (ICUs). Changes over time in end-of-life practices were not investigated regarding religions. METHODS: Twenty-two European ICUs (3 regions: Northern, Central, and Southern Europe) participated in both Ethicus-1 (years 1999-2000) and Ethicus-2 studies (years 2015-2016). Data of ICU patients who died or had limitations of life-sustaining therapy were analysed regarding changes in end-of-life practices and patient/physician religious affiliations. Frequencies, timing of decision-making, and religious affiliations of physicians/patients were compared using the same definitions. RESULTS: In total, 4592 adult ICU patients (n = 2807 Ethicus-1, n = 1785 Ethicus-2) were analysed. In both studies, patient and physician religious affiliations were mostly Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Jewish, Protestant, or unknown. Treating physicians (but not patients) commonly reported no religious affiliation (18%). Distribution of end-of-life practices with respect to religion and geographical regions were comparable between the two studies. Withholding [n = 1143 (40.7%) Ethicus-1 and n = 892 (50%) Ethicus-2] and withdrawing [n = 695 (24.8%) Ethicus-1 and n = 692 (38.8%) Ethicus-2] were most commonly decided. No significant changes in end-of-life practices were observed for any religion over 16 years. The number of end-of-life discussions with patients/ families/ physicians increased, while mortality and time until first decision decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in end-of-life practices observed over 16 years appear unrelated to religious affiliations of ICU patients or their treating physicians, but the effects of religiosity and/or culture could not be assessed. Shorter time until decision in the ICU and increased numbers of patient and family discussions may indicate increased awareness of the importance of end-of-life decision-making in the ICU.

Coercion in intensive care, an insufficiently explored issue-a scoping review of qualitative narratives of patient's experiences.

Purpose: The use of coercion, in a clinical context as imposing a measure against a patient's opposition or declared will, can occur in various forms in intensive care units (ICU). One prime example of a formal coercive measure in the ICU is the use of restraints, which are applied for patients' own safety. Through a database search, we sought to evaluate patient experiences related to coercive measures. Results: For this scoping review, clinical databases were searched for qualitative studies. A total of nine were identified that fulfilled the inclusion and the CASP criteria. Common themes emerging from the studies on patient experiences included communication issues, delirium, and emotional reactions. Statements from patients revealed feelings of compromised autonomy and dignity that came with a loss of control. Physical restraints were only one concrete manifestation of formal coercion as perceived by patients in the ICU setting. Conclusion: There are few qualitative studies focusing on patient experiences of formal coercive measures in the ICU. In addition to the experience of restricted physical movement, the perception of loss of control, loss of dignity, and loss of autonomy suggests that restraining measures are just one element in a setting that may be perceived as informal coercion.

Attitudes of university hospital staff towards in-house assisted suicide.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate staff attitudes toward assisted suicide in the hospital setting in Switzerland. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Two University Hospitals in French speaking regions of Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS: 13'834 health care professionals, including all personnel caring for patients, were invited to participate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND OTHER VARIABLES: Attitudes towards the participation of hospital health care professionals in assisted suicide were investigated with an online questionnaire. RESULTS: Among all invited professionals, 5'127 responded by filling in the survey at least partially (response rate 37.0%), and 3'683 completed the entire survey (26.6%). 73.0% of participants approved that this practice should be authorized in their hospital and saw more positive than negative effects. 57.6% would consider assisted suicide for themselves. Non-medical professionals were 1.28 to 5.25 times more likely to approve assisted suicide than physicians (p<0.001). 70.7% of respondents indicated that each professional should have the choice of whether to assist in suicide. CONCLUSIONS: This multiprofessional survey sheds light on hospital staff perceptions of assisted suicide happening within hospital walls, which may inform the development of rules considering their wishes but also their reluctances. Further research using a mixed-methods approach could help reach an in-depth understanding of staff's attitudes and considerations towards assisted suicide practices.

What does coercion in intensive care mean for patients and their relatives? A thematic qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The need for an ethical debate about the use of coercion in intensive care units (ICU) may not be as obvious as in other areas of medicine, such as psychiatry. Coercive measures are often necessary to treat critically ill patients in the ICU. It is nevertheless important to keep these measures to a minimum in order to respect the dignity of patients and the cohesion of the clinical team. A deeper understanding of what patients and their relatives perceive during their ICU stay will shed different light on intensive care management. Patients' experiences of loss of control, dependency and abandonment may lead to a new approach towards a broader approach to the concept of coercion in intensive care. The aim of our research is to explore the experiences of patients and relatives in the ICU and to determine when it might be possible to reduce feelings and memories of coercion. METHODS: We conducted and analysed 29 semi-structured interviews with patients and relatives who had been in the ICU a few months previously. Following a coding and categorisation process in MAXQDA™, a rigorous qualitative methodology was used to identify themes relevant to our research. RESULTS: Five main themes emerged: memory issues; interviewees' experiences of restricting measures and coercive treatment; patients' negative perception of situational and relational dependency with the risk of informal coercion; patients' perceptions of good care in a context of perceived dependency; progression from perception of coercion and dependency to respect for the person. All patients were grateful to have survived. However, coercion in the form of restraint, restriction of movement, and coercive treatment in the ICU was also acknowledged by patients and relatives. These included elements of informal coercion beyond restraints, such as a perceived negative sense of dependence, surrender, and asymmetrical interaction between the patient and health providers. CONCLUSIONS: To capture the full range of patients' experiences of coercion, it is necessary to expand the concept of coercion to include less obvious forms of informal coercion that may occur in dependency situations. This will help identify solutions to avoid or reduce negative recollections that may persist long after discharge and negatively affect the patients' quality of life.

Prevalence and forms of gender discrimination and sexual harassment among medical students and physicians in French-speaking Switzerland: a survey.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and forms of gender discrimination and sexual harassment experienced by medical students and physicians in French-speaking part of Switzerland. DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted an online survey using a questionnaire of 9 multiple-choice and 2 open questions between 24 January 2019 and 24 February 2019. Our target population was medical students and physicians working at hospitals and general practitioners from the French-speaking part of Switzerland. The online survey was sent via social media platforms and direct emails. We compared answers between male-determined and female-determined respondents using either χ2 or Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: Among 1071 responders, a total of 893 were included (625 females, 264 males, 4 non-binary and 1 non-binary and male). 178 were excluded because they did not mention their working place or were working only outside Switzerland. Because of the small number of non-binary participants, they were not contemplated in further statistical analysis. Of 889 participants left, 199 (31.8%) women and 18 (6.8%) men reported having personally experienced gender discrimination, in terms of sexism, difficulties in career development and psychological pressure. Among women, senior attendings were the most affected (55.2%), followed by residents (44.1%) and junior attendings (41.1%). Sexual harassment was equally observed among women (19.0%) and men (16.7%). Compared with men (47.0%), women (61.4%) expressed the need to promote equality and inclusivity in medicine more frequently (p<0.001), as well as the need for support in their professional development (38.7% women and 23.9% men; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Gender discrimination in medicine in French-speaking Switzerland affects one-third of women, in particular, those working in hospital settings and senior positions.

Changes in intensive care unit nurse involvement in end of life decision making between 1999 and 2016: Descriptive comparative study.

OBJECTIVE: Comparison of nurse involvement in end of life decision making in European countries participating in ETHICUS I- 1999 and ETHICUS II- 2015. METHODOLOGY: This was a prospective observational study of 22 European ICUs included in the ETHICUS-II and I. Data were collected as per the ETHICUS-I and ETHICUS-II protocols. Four questions within the ETHICUS protocols related to nurse involvement in end of life decision making were analyzed. This is a comparison of changes in nurse involvement in end of life decisions from 1999 to 2015. SETTING: International e-based questionnaire completed by an intensive care clinician when an end of life decision was performed on any patient. SUBJECTS: Intensive care physicians and nurses, no interventions were performed. MEASUREMENTS: A 20 question survey was used to describe the decision making process, on what basis was the decision made, who was involved in the decision making process, and what precise decisions were made. RESULTS: A total of 4592 cases from 22 centres are included. While there was more agreement between nurses and physicians in ETHICUS-I compared to ETHICUS-I, fewer discussions with nurses occurred in ETHICUS-II. The frequency of end of life decisions that were discussed with nurses decreased in all three regions between ETHICUS-I and ETHICUS-II. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of the current study, nurses should be further encouraged to increase their involvement in end of life decision-making, especially those in southern Europe.

Changes in communication of end-of-life decisions in European ICUs from 1999 to 2016 (Ethicus-2) - a prospective observational study.

PURPOSE: We investigated changes in communication practice about end-of-life decisions in European ICUs over 16 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospectively planned secondary analysis of two observational studies in 22 European ICUs in 1999-2000 (Ethicus-1) and 2015-16 (Ethicus-2) included consecutive patients who died or with limitation of life-sustaining therapy. ICUs were grouped into North, Central and South European regions. RESULTS: A total 4592 patients were included in 1999-2000 (n = 2807) and 2015-16 (n = 1785). Information about patient wishes increased overall (from 25.4% [570] to 51.1% [840]) and in all regions (42% to 61% [North], 22% to 56% [Central] and 20% to 32% [South], all p < 0.001). Discussions of treatment limitations with patients or families increased overall (66.0% to 76.1%) and in Northern and Central Europe (87% to 94% and 75% to 82.2%, respectively, all p < 0.001) but not in the South. Strongest predictor for discussions was the region (North>Central>South) followed by patient decision-making capacity. CONCLUSION: End-of-life decisions are increasingly discussed but communication practices vary by region and follow a North-South gradient. Despite increased availability of information, patient preferences still remain unknown in every second patient. This calls for increased efforts to assess patient preference in advance and make them known to ICU clinicians.

Variations in end-of-life practices in intensive care units worldwide (Ethicus-2): a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: End-of-life practices vary among intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide. Differences can result in variable use of disproportionate or non-beneficial life-sustaining interventions across diverse world regions. This study investigated global disparities in end-of-life practices. METHODS: In this prospective, multinational, observational study, consecutive adult ICU patients who died or had a limitation of life-sustaining treatment (withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining therapy and active shortening of the dying process) during a 6-month period between Sept 1, 2015, and Sept 30, 2016, were recruited from 199 ICUs in 36 countries. The primary outcome was the end-of-life practice as defined by the end-of-life categories: withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining therapy, active shortening of the dying process, or failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Patients with brain death were included in a separate predefined end-of-life category. Data collection included patient characteristics, diagnoses, end-of-life decisions and their timing related to admission and discharge, or death, with comparisons across different regions. Patients were studied until death or 2 months from the first limitation decision. FINDINGS: Of 87 951 patients admitted to ICU, 12 850 (14·6%) were included in the study population. The number of patients categorised into each of the different end-of-life categories were significantly different for each region (p<0·001). Limitation of life-sustaining treatment occurred in 10 401 patients (11·8% of 87 951 ICU admissions and 80·9% of 12 850 in the study population). The most common limitation was withholding life-sustaining treatment (5661 [44·1%]), followed by withdrawing life-sustaining treatment (4680 [36·4%]). More treatment withdrawing was observed in Northern Europe (1217 [52·8%] of 2305) and Australia/New Zealand (247 [45·7%] of 541) than in Latin America (33 [5·8%] of 571) and Africa (21 [13·0%] of 162). Shortening of the dying process was uncommon across all regions (60 [0·5%]). One in five patients with treatment limitations survived hospitalisation. Death due to failed CPR occurred in 1799 (14%) of the study population, and brain death occurred in 650 (5·1%). Failure of CPR occurred less frequently in Northern Europe (85 [3·7%] of 2305), Australia/New Zealand (23 [4·3%] of 541), and North America (78 [8·5%] of 918) than in Africa (106 [65·4%] of 162), Latin America (160 [28·0%] of 571), and Southern Europe (590 [22·5%] of 2622). Factors associated with treatment limitations were region, age, and diagnoses (acute and chronic), and country end-of-life legislation. INTERPRETATION: Limitation of life-sustaining therapies is common worldwide with regional variability. Withholding treatment is more common than withdrawing treatment. Variations in type, frequency, and timing of end-of-life decisions were observed. Recognising regional differences and the reasons behind these differences might help improve end-of-life care worldwide. FUNDING: None.

[Euthanasia and assisted suicide - Comparative and reflexive vision between Belgium and Switzerland]. / Euthanasie et suicide assisté - Vision comparative et réflexive entre la Belgique et la Suisse.

This article is issued from a reflective approach developed from a case observed during the internship of Dr Van Nieuwenhove in the neuro-resuscitation department of the intensive care unit of the Geneva University Hospitals (Switzerland) in July 2018. This article sought to analyse the similarities and differences between two major attitudes towards assisted deaths, namely euthanasia in Belgium and assisted suicide in Switzerland. The relevant legislations and ethical considerations are presented with the value at stake in these particular end-of-life management. The whole reflective process discussed here is based on the assumption that the patient has made the request to die or had requested the end of his suffering. The reflections and questions are therefore only simple speculations allowing to open a discussion.

Cet article est issu d'une approche réflexive développée à partir d'un cas observé durant le stage de formation médicale du Dr Van Nieuwenhove dans le Service de neuroréanimation de l'Unité des soins intensifs des HUG en juillet 2018. Il cherche à analyser les similarités et différences entre deux attitudes majeures à l'égard des décès assistés, à savoir l'euthanasie en Belgique et le suicide assisté en Suisse. Les législations pertinentes et les considérations éthiques sont présentées dans ce cas particulier de gestion de fin de vie. La totalité de la réflexion abordée dans cet article est basée sur la simple considération que le patient ait formulé la demande de mourir ou, du moins, la fin de ses souffrances. Les réflexions et les questions soulevées sont donc de simples spéculations permettant d'ouvrir la discussion.

Initiative for Burnout of ICU Caregivers: Feasibility and Preliminary Results of a Psychological Support.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU) caregivers are at high risk of burnout and the shortage of this highly specialized personal is a problem. The feasibility and impact of a psychological intervention were never assessed in this special context. METHODS: A randomized controlled single-blind study in an ICU. The first intervention consisted in weekly problem-based sessions led by psychologists with small groups of caregivers using a systemic approach over 3 months. The modified intervention was lead for 9 months. The scores of Maslach Burnout Inventory and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale were compared between the intervention and control groups, before and after the intervention. RESULTS: One-hundred and sixty six caregivers were randomized in intervention and control groups. The major finding was the way the psychologists could modify the original methodology in order to enable caregivers to attend the sessions. Burnout scores tended to decrease across the whole ICU team after the intervention period, more in the intervention group. Participation in the study was poor at 6 months after intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study attempting to evaluate a psychological intervention on the mental health of ICU caregivers. It shows a modified method of a psychological support with a systemic approach in the special environment of ICU. Notwithstanding the modest results related to the short length of the process and the turnover of the personal, we demonstrated that such an approach is feasible. Further studies on larger scale and of longer duration are needed to investigate the effect of such interventions on the mental health of ICU caregivers.

Changes in End-of-Life Practices in European Intensive Care Units From 1999 to 2016.

IMPORTANCE: End-of-life decisions occur daily in intensive care units (ICUs) around the world, and these practices could change over time. OBJECTIVE: To determine the changes in end-of-life practices in European ICUs after 16 years. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Ethicus-2 was a prospective observational study of 22 European ICUs previously included in the Ethicus-1 study (1999-2000). During a self-selected continuous 6-month period at each ICU, consecutive patients who died or had any limitation of life-sustaining therapy from September 2015 until October 2016 were included. Patients were followed up until death or until 2 months after the first treatment limitation decision. EXPOSURES: Comparison between the 1999-2000 cohort vs 2015-2016 cohort. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: End-of-life outcomes were classified into 5 mutually exclusive categories (withholding of life-prolonging therapy, withdrawing of life-prolonging therapy, active shortening of the dying process, failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR], brain death). The primary outcome was whether patients received any treatment limitations (withholding or withdrawing of life-prolonging therapy or shortening of the dying process). Outcomes were determined by senior intensivists. RESULTS: Of 13 625 patients admitted to participating ICUs during the 2015-2016 study period, 1785 (13.1%) died or had limitations of life-prolonging therapies and were included in the study. Compared with the patients included in the 1999-2000 cohort (n = 2807), the patients in 2015-2016 cohort were significantly older (median age, 70 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 59-79] vs 67 years [IQR, 54-75]; P < .001) and the proportion of female patients was similar (39.6% vs 38.7%; P = .58). Significantly more treatment limitations occurred in the 2015-2016 cohort compared with the 1999-2000 cohort (1601 [89.7%] vs 1918 [68.3%]; difference, 21.4% [95% CI, 19.2% to 23.6%]; P < .001), with more withholding of life-prolonging therapy (892 [50.0%] vs 1143 [40.7%]; difference, 9.3% [95% CI, 6.4% to 12.3%]; P < .001), more withdrawing of life-prolonging therapy (692 [38.8%] vs 695 [24.8%]; difference, 14.0% [95% CI, 11.2% to 16.8%]; P < .001), less failed CPR (110 [6.2%] vs 628 [22.4%]; difference, -16.2% [95% CI, -18.1% to -14.3%]; P < .001), less brain death (74 [4.1%] vs 261 [9.3%]; difference, -5.2% [95% CI, -6.6% to -3.8%]; P < .001) and less active shortening of the dying process (17 [1.0%] vs 80 [2.9%]; difference, -1.9% [95% CI, -2.7% to -1.1%]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients who had treatment limitations or died in 22 European ICUs in 2015-2016, compared with data reported from the same ICUs in 1999-2000, limitations in life-prolonging therapies occurred significantly more frequently and death without limitations in life-prolonging therapies occurred significantly less frequently. These findings suggest a shift in end-of-life practices in European ICUs, but the study is limited in that it excluded patients who survived ICU hospitalization without treatment limitations.

Admission to intensive care: A qualitative study of triage and its determinants.

OBJECTIVE: To examine physicians' decision making and its determinants about admission to intensive care. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: ICU physicians (n = 12) and internists (n = 12) working in a Swiss tertiary care hospital. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted in-depth interviews. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Interviews were analyzed using an inductive thematic approach. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Admission decisions regarding seriously ill or elderly patients with comorbidities are complex. Nonmedical factors such as ICU beds availability, health care resources on the ward, information about patient preferences, and family behavior determine the decision. Code status and the quality of interaction between physicians are key determinants. The absence of code status or poor documentation of code status discussions makes decisions more difficult and laden emotionally, as physicians feel they are making a life-death decision. Mutual respect and collaborative decision making facilitate the decision. Tensions arise due to ICU physicians' postponing the decision because of lack of beds, ICU physicians' dismissive attitudes, perceived shortcomings in the other physician's completion of expected tasks, and preconceptions about the other physician. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic documentation of code status, and fostering collaboration between ICU physicians and internists would facilitate ICU admission decisions in complex clinical situations.

ICU physicians' and internists' survival predictions for patients evaluated for admission to the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: A higher chance of survival is a key justification for admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). This implies that physicians should be able to accurately estimate a patient's prognosis, whether cared for on the ward or in the ICU. We aimed to determine whether physicians' survival predictions correlate with the admission decisions and with patients' observed survival. Consecutive ICU consultations for internal medicine patients were included. The ICU physician and the internist were asked to predict patient survival with intensive care and with care on the ward using 5 categories of probabilities (< 10%, 10-40%, 41-60%, 61-90%, > 90%). Patient mortality at 28 days was recorded. RESULTS: Thirty ICU physicians and 97 internists assessed 201 patients for intensive care. Among the patients, 140 (69.7%) were admitted to the ICU. Fifty-eight (28.9%) died within 28 days. Admission to intensive care was associated with predicted survival gain in the ICU, particularly for survival estimates made by ICU physicians. Observed survival was associated with predicted survival, for both groups of physicians. The discrimination of the predictions for survival with intensive care, measured by the area under the ROC curve, was 0.63 for ICU physicians and 0.76 for internists; for survival on the ward the areas under the ROC curves were 0.69 and 0.74, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians are able to predict survival probabilities when they assess patients for intensive care, albeit imperfectly. Internists are more accurate than ICU physicians. However, ICU physicians' estimates more strongly influence the admission decision. Closer collaboration between ICU physicians and internists is needed.

Internists' and intensivists' roles in intensive care admission decisions: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care Unit (ICU) admission decisions involve collaboration between internists and intensivists. Clear perception of each other's roles is a prerequisite for good collaboration. The objective was to explore how internists and intensivists perceive their roles during admission decisions. METHODS: Individual in-depth interviews with 12 intensivists and 12 internists working at a Swiss teaching hospital. Interviews were analyzed using a thematic approach. RESULTS: Roles could be divided into practical roles and identity roles. Internist and intensivists had the same perception of each other's practical roles. Internists' practical roles were: recognizing signs of severity when the patient becomes acutely ill, calling the intensivist at the right moment, having the relevant information about the patient and having determined the goals of care. Intensivists' practical roles were: assessing the patient on the ward, giving expert advice, making quick decisions, managing access to the ICU, having the final decision power and, sometimes, deciding whether or not to limit treatment. In complex situations, perceived flaws in performing practical roles could create tensions between the doctors. Intensivists' identity roles included those of leader, gatekeeper, life-death decision maker, and supporting colleague doctors (consultant, senior and helper). These roles could be perceived as emotionally burdensome. Internists' identity roles were those of leader and partner. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a common perception of each other's practical roles, tensions can arise between internists and intensivists in complex situations of ICU admission decisions. Training in communication skills and interprofessional education interventions aimed at a better understanding of each other roles would improve collaboration.

[Why a post-intensive care consultation ?] / Pourquoi une consultation post-soins intensifs ?

The progress of intensive care medicine allows the survival of patients with severe critical illness. However, the quality of life of patients with a prolonged stay in intensive care unit (ICU) can be poor. The physical and psychological consequences are due more to the intensive care than the primary diagnoses. Moreover, a stay of a beloved in an ICU impacts heavily on the relatives. The service of Geneva ICU developed a specific model of care for patients with a prolonged stay and seeks to establish a follow-up consultation for these patients. The aim would be to fill the memory gaps, explain the events during their stay, and detect potential complications. This project fits in the follow-up of complex situations in tight collaboration with the family doctors of such patients.

Le progrès de la médecine intensive permet la survie de patients gravement atteints dans leur santé. Toutefois, les conditions de survie de ces patients, surtout après un séjour prolongé aux soins intensifs (SI), sont parfois difficiles. Les atteintes physiques et psychiques à moyen et long termes sont propres aux événements vécus aux SI, plus que les conséquences des diagnostics d'admission aux SI. De plus, ce séjour impacte lourdement sur les proches de ces patients. Les SI de Genève ont mis en place une structure de suivi durant le séjour prolongé de patients et souhaite aujourd'hui leur offrir un suivi après les SI. Le but est de combler les lacunes de mémoire de leur séjour, expliquer les événements incompris et détecter d'éventuelles complications. Ce projet s'insère dans le suivi complexe de ces patients avec les médecins traitants.

Correction to: Should all ICU clinicians regularly be tested for burnout? No.

The original publication contained an erroneous version of Fig. 1.